I sent the message below to [hidden email] by mistake from
[hidden email], an email I don't want widely distributed.
So I was actually pleased when the spam system asked my confirmation
before distributing to the list. I said DON'T.
However, I would like to send the message to someone appropriate
(and from my usual already public mail account, namely this one).
But I'm not sure that the message as below is suitable for
eternal public archiving. So please, Bert, say what you think I
should do. I could just forget the whole matter, as I do have
other pressing things to do. But then so do you both, so I
apologize for bothering you.
I noticed what I thought was an anomaly in the listings for MathML
in the QA matrix of specs, which seemed to be a W3C reference document,
at least on first exposure to it. I brought this up with my WG
co-chair who pointed out the age of the page. I checked further
and found as (included) below in my reply to his message.
I do think this could be a problem for the W3C thatit is often none
too clear what is considered a current reference document. I applaud
entirely keeping the earlier forms of documents readily accessible
on the W3C site, and believe that this has encouraged better development
over the years. But I fear it may be a problem that older, possibly
superseded and probably no longer maintained pages, are not readily
detectable by some clear marking, at least on the W3C site.
We, of the Math WG, would prefer people use MathML 3.0, but think
MathML 2.0 should be available for perusal, and to document
what an older MathML 2.0-compliant system is (supposed to be) doing.
But our specs are written so as to make clear that evolution's
going on. More general, W3C-wide documents are not so clearly
labeled, it seems to me, as to what their current statuses are:
e.g., current or archive, say.
I append the message that shows my evolving understanding of the
status of the spec matrix, so others may understand that my
progress was maybe reasonable, but should probably have been unnecessary.
All the best,
Patrick Ion, W3C Math WG Co-chair
======= Message replied David Carlisle and Math WG ====
On 3/14/13 8:51 AM, David Carlisle wrote:
> Yes, I suppose you should report it although it says
> This version of the Matrix has been produced at this $Date: 2011/01/03
> so it's 2 years old, is it still being maintained at all or is it an
Well, yes, the question of upkeep had occurred to me, although I arrived
there as an ordinary inquiring person might after seeing the Doctorow
piece on TBL and DRM
This matrix is mentioned as a reference document on the
Quality Assurance Home Page
"The QA IG was the main body of the Quality Assurance activity at W3C."
So one conjectures the W3C is no longer into QA and that my whole
question is moot, and my attention to it was following a red herring.
That I could readily do this, is perhaps a problem for the W3C not just
for me. I'll tell W3C QA if it still exists.
QA Matrix Maintenance Re: A Red Herring I followed
not speaking on behalf of W3C staff.
Le 14 mars 2013 à 10:32, Patrick Ion a écrit :
> I noticed what I thought was an anomaly in the listings for MathML
> in the QA matrix of specs, which seemed to be a W3C reference document, at least on first exposure to it.
> Dear Bert and David,
> However, I would like to send the message to someone appropriate
> (and from my usual already public mail account, namely this one).
> But I'm not sure that the message as below is suitable for
> eternal public archiving. So please, Bert, say what you think I
> should do. I could just forget the whole matter, as I do have
> other pressing things to do. But then so do you both, so I
> apologize for bothering you.
The QA matrix was a useful resource while it was maintained, but at the moment it is indeed more harmful than helpful. Somebody in the team, although I don't know who, should replace it with an appropriate message. The message could suggest http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-status-all as the current best alternative.
The QA activity has been replaced by the Testing activity, but the QA activity's Web pages are now mostly orphans.
Probably the best is to send e-mail to the communications team at <[hidden email]>, or maybe directly to Ian Jacobs <[hidden email]>. They are responsible for the W3C site in general and they have also taken over the former QA hame page, which is now the W3C blog. They actually know about the problem, but so far it has had low priority: They have only fixed things that people complained about. So my guess is, if you send e-mail about the matrix page, they will do something about that, too :-)
If you want, you can CC me and I will try to make sure there is some follow-up.